Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "fsafe".
Did you mean:
safe
2014 Nov 04
4
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Protection against stack-based memory corruption errors using SafeStack
On 4 Nov 2014, at 00:36, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> You at least increase the memory footprint by doubling the stack sizes.
Not quite. The space overhead is constant for each stack frame - you just need to keep track of the top of two stacks, rather than one. The important overhead is that you reduce locality of reference. You will need a minimum of two cache
2014 Nov 03
8
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Protection against stack-based memory corruption errors using SafeStack
...cal variables to the unsafe stack with a separate stack pointer, whereas
all safe variables remain on the regular stack that is managed by LLVM as
usual.
-- Invoke the pass as the last stage before code generation (at the same
time the existing cookie-based stack protector pass is invoked).
-- Add -fsafe-stack and -fno-safe-stack options to clang to control safe
stack usage (the safe stack is disabled by default).
-- Add __attribute__((no_safe_stack)) attribute to clang that can be used
to disable the safe stack for individual functions even when enabled
globally.
-- Add basic runtime support for t...